Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses Software Linux

Fedora 10 Released 211

Posted by timothy from the looks-all-around-nice dept.
ekimd writes "Fedora 10, aka 'Cambridge,' was released today. Some of the major features include: 'wireless connection sharing enables ad hoc network sharing, better setup and use of printers through improved management tools, virtualization storage provisioning for local and remote connections now simplified, SecTool is a new security audit and intrusion detection system.' Versions of major software include: Gnome 2.24, Eclipse 3.4 and RPM 4.6. A features list can be found here." Reader Nate2 suggests LinuxFormat's detailed look at the new release, and adds a few more details about the software it contains: the release includes "a new graphical boot-up sequence, OpenOffice.org 3, many improvements to sound support via PulseAudio and other updates."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora 10 Released More

Fedora 10 Released

Comments Filter:

  • But does it run on .... shit that does not work... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:36AM (#25886527) Journal
    The improved sound support is welcome. I just feel that my previous experience with yum was that it was clunky on older hardware and a bit slow next to Synaptic and apt-get on the same machine. Slicking up the interfaces is nice and the inclusion of OpenOffice 3 is very cool though. Good luck Fedora maybe I will try them out instead of Ubuntu next time I decide to upgrade my OS.
    • There is very, very little that can change the behavior of yum on older hardware. Since it uses quite a bit of memory, your problems with that may be due to broken memory. Run memtest for a while.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by chammy ( 1096007 )
        I've always found yum to use a ridiculous amount of resources on my setups. Whenever I install something on my tiny P4 server it will drain so much memory that the computer can't do anything else at the same time. I had a copy of debian on it in the past and I could run apt upgrades and still work in another terminal just fine. Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Abcd1234 ( 188840 )

          Yum does have some pros over apt but they sure aren't speed and efficiency.

          Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MSG ( 12810 )

            Good god, like what? I haven't found *anything* yum does better than apt.

            Off the top of my head, it can install packages based on filenames or "provides" if you don't know the package name. It can also install a local package and resolve dependencies from repositories. apt can't do any of those things.

            • I'm not a debian zealot but in defense of apt I have to say that all these features that you mentioned seem pretty much useless to me.
              Useless as in: I have never needed anything like that in my 8 years on various linux distros (deb, rpm, gentoo), not even once.

              The only feature that seems at least theoretically useful would be the last one. I could imagine using that when testing a package that I rolled myself, but in reality you just set up a local package mirror for that which you need anyways when you get

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      I just don't get this level of hate against yum. It's approaching ridiculous levels now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LDoggg_ ( 659725 )
        And it's also hate based on yum's early implementations. It really has gotten much faster.

        One thing that they did a few fedora versions back is switch from xml based meta data to gzipped sqllite files. Sped things up immensely.

        I guess some people just like to criticize whatever it is that competes with the thing they're using.

    • Re:But does it run on .... shit that does not work (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @01:01PM (#25888715)
      How long ago was this "previous yum experience" the last several years have seen vast improvements in yum.

      Problem is when Fedora first jumped off everyone tried it then formed an opinion based on 5 years ago. Most of these opinions spider across slashdot by people who haven't installed fedora since F2. When i was running Fedora a simple yum update command would finish in about 3-5 seconds. I'm also using a p4/2gb.

      From the yum FAQ:
      How is the speed of yum compared to APT-RPM?

      yum automatically checks the repository every time you perform a command, except when run in shell mode, while APT only checks it when you run 'apt-get update' manually. This causes it to appear slower than it is. If you want yum to run from cache instead of checking the repositories, run 'yum -C '. See the man page for details.

      yum now uses sqlite for its back-end database by default. This results in an edge in speed over older versions of yum. Beginning with Fedora Core 4, yum contains significant improvements that make it faster and more capable than older versions.

      In general to posters. If you haven't installed an OS in 5 years would you mind not commenting on it unless you state when you used it. People out there get the impression nobody fixed yum when it was fixed 7-8 versions ago.

      • I admin an FC8 cluster and run Debian at home. I still hate yum. When the owner of the cluster decides to upgrade to F10, I will try yum again and see if I like it, i.e. if it has finally sped up a bit. I have tried it on every FC version between 2 and 8 now and hated it on all of them (yes, even with -C). But I'm sure they'll get it right someday. :)

        Fair's fair, I noticed that the search heuristics improved around FC4 or FC5. I used to hate those as well, now they're fine.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by NotBorg ( 829820 ) *

      I've never really understood why Yum performance is really all that make or break important. I for one spend more time using the software installed than installing it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I don't spend all day every day installing and removing software.

      If I use OpenOffice a lot and notice that it's significantly slower on one distro in particular, that would be more of a deciding factor than how long it took to install OpenOffice.

    • next time I decide to upgrade my OS.

      Alternatively, if you use an OS which guarantees clean upgrades, such as Debian, one of the BSDs, or IIRC Gentoo, then "upgrade" is simply a shell command you issue.

  • The big question is. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:39AM (#25886579) Homepage Journal

    Does it come with easy access to the "restricted" repositories?
    That is the thing that makes Ubuntu so easy. You just take a check mark off the evil restricted repositories and you can download all those evil codecs that let you play video on your Linux box.
    Oh and those evil closed source video drivers as well.

    • Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)

      by guardia ( 579095 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:45AM (#25886663) Homepage
      RPM Fusion is getting pretty darn good http://rpmfusion.org/ [rpmfusion.org] Just one RPM to install manually, and you can get all the "evil" stuff very easily... plus, haven't tested it yet, but the new hooks in Totem should make the process pretty much automatic.
      • A load of rpmfusion repos just showed up in my repolist today.

      • Well yes, if you use Totem. Seems silly that you need to use a specific player to get that functionality. Well, as long as they include another way to get those codecs I don't care.

    • Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)

      by gzipped_tar ( 1151931 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:45AM (#25886671) Journal

      You can install the rpmfusion-nonfree repo's signing keys and update the binary blobs via yum. However RPMfusion is not included in the release by default and you'll have to do this by yourself.

      AFAIK distributing "evil" codecs are against Fedora's policy so they don't do that. But that doesn't prevent anyone else from doing it.

    • Re:The big question is. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mowall ( 865642 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:45AM (#25886673)

      Does it come with easy access to the "restricted" repositories?

      Well it's certainly easier now since all the "restricted" repositories are now in one place - RPM Fusion [rpmfusion.org]. So you just install the rpmfusion rpm and then you get access to all the goodies. Not too sure how this is presented GUI-wise though.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well it's certainly easier now since all the "restricted" repositories are now in one place - RPM Fusion [rpmfusion.org].

        Except for the package libdvdcss, which could not be included into RPM Fusion and is still sitting in Livna.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alioth ( 221270 )

        I think it's pretty easy, last time I did it was with Livna - click on the RPM on their website and install it (using the GUI, naturally), then the new packages can easily be found in the Add/Remove software GUI along with all the usual Fedora stuff. Piece of cake.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mowall ( 865642 )
          Seems you can enable rpm-fusion during the installation so you're up and running straight away. Very nice. This blog post [blogspot.com] provides useful details.

    • RPM Fusion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ink ( 4325 ) * on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:46AM (#25886691) Homepage

      It's never been difficult to add Dag and Livna, but it's now even easier: http://rpmfusion.org/ [rpmfusion.org] I really liked the polish of Fedora 9, it was a huge step up from 8. Hopefully Fedora 10 continues in that direction.

    • Breaking the law is always easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:52AM (#25886771)
      The fun thing about using Ubuntu is that Canonical does not have any concerns about the laws of the United States of America. Red Hat does, because unlike Canonical, Red Hat is an American corporation. Red Hat cannot ship any software that could violate patent or copyright law, and many of the codecs in the non-free repositories do violate those laws. If you do not like the consequences of those laws, then:
      1. Let your congressman know that, unless he at least attempts to undo those laws, you will stop voting for him.
      2. Join the campaign to repeal those laws
      3. Use free codecs and demand that people send you media that is free-libre
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Yeah, but Fedora is not Red Hat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Canonical almost certainly has support agreements in the US, and they got assets there (the OEM team is located there). Sounds to me they'd have a little problem escaping US jurisdiction if someone was to take a shot at them. Hopefully what they're doing is distancing themselves enough to stay out of trouble.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 )
        Dont bother writing your Congressman.

        Fedora wouldn't care if its legal or not. They're doing it cause its not OSS.
        People tend to think this is something Fedora wants to do but it isn't. They dont Want MP3 by default, they dont want closed drivers by default. You know why? they want to distribute a free OS and promote free software. Unless these technology's have gpl source code fedora doesn't care much. Just lump it into RPM fusion and be done with it. Its a perfect solution to me. Did you know on window

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by BigGerman ( 541312 )
      did not you read the FA? This ease-of-use-thing must be one of those terrible controversies every Ubuntu release is allegedly suffering from.

  • Warning: I is a n00b (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:39AM (#25886585)

    I remember having fun installing Fedora 9 on my PS3. I'd never used linux before (I know, I know, I'll hand in my geek card at the next meeting...) and I figured it'd be more interesting to get a distro NOT designed for the PS3 to run properly than one that was (Such as YDL).

    But for those "in the know", would this distro feature any changes/improvements with regards to the PS3? Or is it still "unofficially" supported and thus will be about the same?

  • They are using RPM 4.6.0 release candidate (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gzipped_tar ( 1151931 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:40AM (#25886593) Journal

    RPM 4.6 is an RC, not a stable release. I have to say it's a somewhat bold move. RPM is the heart of the distro. It is even more important than the kernel.

    As a Fedora supporter I for one welcome the move.

    Now cue the RPM haters.

    • Re:They are using RPM 4.6.0 release candidate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prefect42 ( 141309 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @11:04AM (#25886935)

      I think you hit it right on the head. Fedora can do this, because that's what it's for. It avoids getting trapped behind painful changes because of worries that it'll cause short term pain.

      Fedora should be all about long term gain, and if RPM 4.6 is a little bit experimental, great. Let's get the bugs out in the open and sort it out.

    • Fedora (and the old free (non-enterprise) Redhat) were always about the bleeding edge. You get the newest stuff that they can cram in, and bugs aren't that uncommon.

      RedHat Enterprise uses much older, much more tested code. They use Fedora for their testbed, use them to push wider adoption and testing of software that they want to put into their flagship product.

      It's not a bad deal, but people who put the "newest" redhat stuff on their servers make my skin crawl. It's not really for that.

      • How do cutting edge distros compare actually?
        Im using ubuntu and it seams to be a bit too stable (as in old packages) for me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jackspenn ( 682188 )

      The cool thing about Fedora is that it is cutting edge innovative stuff. I use RHEL or CENTOS on servers, but on my Thinkpad, which isn't even my primary laptop, I just love tossing on each Fedora release as soon as it comes out and tweaking it until the next version comes out. It is a fun way to geek out and learn. If there are bugs or glitches, it is often challenging and fun to workout and troubleshoot. The cool part is that much of Fedora leads into RHEL releases so as a Linux consultant I not only

  • Mirrors are still unavailable (Score:3, Informative)

    by Deputy Doodah ( 745441 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @10:42AM (#25886623)
    Not (really) released just yet; none of the mirrors are working.
    10:40 am Eastern

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chang ( 2714 )

      Portland State seems to be working. I'm just about done downloading a minimal set of packages.

  • I expect this one will be better still.
    (No I don't work for Red Hat.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 )

      I expect this one will be better still. (No I don't work for Red Hat.)

      As a Fedora user perhaps you (and your many cohorts in the community who are reading this) can offer some input.

      I used to use Red Hat and Fedora in olden times. I got to know them really well (I'm even an RHCE). But when FC2 came out it really bothered me. While FC1 was basically an evolution of Red Hat 9, FC2 was way too experimental to be an everyday business or personal OS, and it revealed what Red Hat was going to do with its free OS: turn me into a guniea pig. It was the first Fedora to sport the 2

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PitaBred ( 632671 )

        Try upgrading to the latest 9.04 alpha if you're not using it on a critical box. KDE4.1 has been much improved (might even be 4.2... dunno), but there are still lots of random broken packages and such.

        That said, KDE4.1 is definitely the issue with Kubuntu. It's still not mature, though it is "stable".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by marsu_k ( 701360 )

        If you want (in my opinion), the best, certainly one of the most configurable, KDE 4.x experience out there, try KDEmod [kdemod.ath.cx]. Currently it's at version 4.1.3, and includes some backports from the 4.2 branch as well (finally, panel auto-hiding for example). Even better, it runs on a very flexible and fast distribution [archlinux.org], that's either i686 or x86-64 optimized, has a really fast package manager, uses precompiled packages by default but makes compiling packages with custom options very trivial and is as light (or hea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fnj ( 64210 )

      It hasn't been called Fedora Core for quite a while. It's just Fedora now.

  • This dom0 [fedoraproject.org] was rather important for me. I am still running FC8 for that reason. I guess xen virtualization is slowly disappearing. Kvm I presume will be the way to go eventually...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jsolan ( 1014825 )
      Xen virtualization is still strong, fedora just isn't porting the kernel patches upstream anymore. I believe Novell has a 2.6.27 kernel with xen patches. I would think it to be possible to pull down the kernel source from Fedora, build the config, then pull in suse kernel source, run make oldconfig, and compile your own kernel for fedora using the suse sources. I've never tried it and fully understand that this is an unacceptable option for most fedora users.

      I've been following the fedora-xen mailing l

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Xen as a dom0 is in fact losing favor in the Red Hat world. There are technologies being developed that will allow a KVM host to run Xen guests. It's called "xenner" http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/ and is coming along nicely, but not super stable yet.

      Virtualization is important to Red Hat, and given how much of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 was focused around virtualization, there is little doubt that existing deployments on Xen won't have a migration path to what RHEL 6 offers. Red Hat hedged their

  • Distro comparison? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd.bandrowskyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @11:01AM (#25886889) Homepage Journal

    Is there a web site that compares distros? I look at the release list for FC10 and I don't see much compared to how Ubuntu is, but there is a lot of techy stuff under the hood also on that list that causes me to wonder what is good "inside" of Ubuntu, versus FC10.

  • Fast boot (Score:3, Informative)

    by dfdashh ( 1060546 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @11:45AM (#25887549)
    The dev team did away with rhgb (replaced by plymouth [youtube.com]) and used readahead to achieve faster (30 seconds was the target) boot times (details here [fedoraproject.org]). Plymouth relies on kernel modesetting support to get its graphical goodness, which unfortunately is only supported well on ATI chips.

    • And even then only on some, none of the newer cards work for example (and newer is from the last 1-2 years or so).

  • RHEL6 (Score:2)

    by MagPulse ( 316 )

    Any word on whether Red Hat Enterprise 6 will be based on this release or Fedora 9?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      According to Red Hat's presentation at SC08 last week, Enterprise 6 will be base on Fedora 11.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fnj ( 64210 )

        According to Red Hat's presentation at SC08 last week, Enterprise 6 will be base on Fedora 11.

        2010 then? Late 2009 would be pushing it a bit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fnj ( 64210 )

      ... by MagPulse (316)

      64210 doesn't seem like a very low user number at all any more :-o

  • Competitive Advantage? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @11:55AM (#25887691) Homepage

    Why should I use this new Fedora instead of Ubuntu or OS X or FreeBSD, etc.?

    What a shitty summary (par for the course, I know, I know).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ettlz ( 639203 )
      Because blue is a nicer colour than brown, translucent grey-white, or blood-stain red.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      Use Fedora if you're big on cutting edge, and FOSS.
      Use Ubuntu if you're hoping for things to just work.
      I'm not sure abotu FreeBSD. And really, on Ubuntu, I'm just passing what I've heard as the only time I tried it it failed me terribly.

    • Re:Competitive Advantage? (Score:5, Funny)

      by jmyers ( 208878 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @01:46PM (#25889373)

      Use Ubuntu if you are lazy and like free beer
      Use Fedora if you like free beer and Free software
      Use FreeBSD if you like free beer and dont like GPL
      Use OSX if you like to flash $100 bills when you pay for your beer

    • Why should I use this new Fedora instead of Ubuntu or OS X or FreeBSD, etc.?

      I use it cause they're dedicated to free software. We help them, they help us. I wont go down the massive amount of new technologies and bug fixes fedora provides cause its pretty much common knowledge these days.

  • The new version of rpm (4.6) shipped with Fedora 10 claims that it can handle packages over 2GB now. Does anyone have packages that big?

    • Re:2+GB rpm's? (Score:5, Funny)

      by bubkus_jones ( 561139 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @12:29PM (#25888157)

      My package is at least that big.

      Oh come on, someone had to say it.

      • My package is at least that big.

        Oh come on, someone had to say it.

        You mean your package can fit on a thumb drive?

    • Someone plans to have HD movie rpms if copyright laws are changed?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chris Snook ( 872473 )

      I seriously hope nobody is shipping RPMs with more than 2 GB of executable code, but many applications ship with gigabytes worth of templates, samples, artwork, models, benchmark data sets, maps, etc. Even if you break the contents of an installation DVD into functionally distinct subpackages, you can easily end up with a dozen libraries that are a few hundred KB, a few distinct applications that are tens of megabytes each, and few GB of application data that can't logically be split any further.

  • Happy anniversary Fedora !! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by messner_007 ( 1042060 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2008 @12:22PM (#25888013)

    I am using Fedora from the first version on ...

    I have a server, that still runs Fedora core 1:

    [messner@Server messner]$ cat /etc/*-release
    Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
    Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
    [messner@Server messner]$ date
    Tue Nov 25 18:16:34 CET 2008

    I will shut it down this month .... now it can go to rest ....

    Sometimes Fedora wasn't so polished as it should be, the first versions were very problematic, documentation and community were scarce ... sometimes it was hardly usable for me, because I am not an expert.

    But it got better and better with each release. Number 9 was excellent, first class ... I think number 7 was the first one, that really rocked, but No. 9 rocks ...

    I am downloading number 10 now. I know it will be good. It is getting better and better with each release.

  • Anyone else got a kernel oops when running the liveCD under VirtualBox?

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close